Where to begin?

[paladinm]

If you were to build 5e from the ground up (which Wizards seems to be sort-of doing), where would be your starting point? Everyone has his/her preferred version - mine is BECM. But even I would entertain starting from a 1e, 2e or 3.x "base" and building from there. Or would it be easier/better to start with 4e and try to retrofit elements from previous versions? Personally I think that 4e was too much of a departure on many fronts; but even I can see the benefit of Some of what was done.

What should be (or should have been) the starting point.. the foundation?

 

[Hautamaki]

I'd start from 3.x Every edition has their good and bad points, but I feel 3.x was the best written and designed overall. The problems with 3.x are the most fixable, in another way of putting it.

 

[Bluenose]

I'd want to start the PHB from AD&D. 2nd Edition would be a good choice, or I could see using 1st edition as it was after the Wilderness.Dungeon Survival Guides were out.

For the MM, I like the 4th edition version where what the monsters can do is written in their stat blocks, and 2nd edition had by far the best support/background material.

For the DMG, I'm not sure anyof them have got it entirely right. The 1st edition and 4th edition ones do the best job, in different areas. Get Robin Laws to write a new one.

 

[sheadunne]

I don't think BECMI is really being considered. Here's the trail.

AD&D 1e > AD&D 2e > D&D 3e > D&D 4e > D&D Next (5e)

OD&D > BECMI (various versions) > D&D Rules Cyclopedia

I don't think they're really giving BECMI a fair chance since it really doesn't follow the chain of editions. Personally I'd love to have a parallel 5e that follows the second chain. When I think about going back to the older editions, I always end up running Basic, usually the 1983 red box since that's what I started with.

 

[grimslade]

I think BECMI is being considered quite a bit. The open playtest is going to hew close to a BECMI/AD&D hybrid it seems and the resolution mechanic for skills is pretty close to Basic. I think stripped down and locked up 5E will play very close to BECMI.

 

[MichaelSomething]

My starting point would be well defined list of objectives. Next I would gather and read RPGs from all editions of D&D, as well as from many other RPGs and various genre media like pulp, fantasy, anime, etc.

 

[howandwhy99]

What should be (or should have been) the starting point.. the foundation?

This is a very hard question. I applaud Wizards for just trying to answer it themselves. They got some big brass ones to try what they are trying. We'll see what answers they've come up with in a few weeks.

My own thinking is to take an accounting of what is currently going on in the D&D community. What do people want? What are people's concerns? What are they happy and unhappy with already?

After that I would attempt to account not only for all the different rules and kinds of rules of all the different rule sets of D&D, but also attempt to consider and take measure of all the different game design philosophies its designers and players have used with it as well as play styles when running it.

That's a tall order I know.

Ultimately I would attempt to publish a game that could be of greatest use to the greatest number of people in the greatest number of ways. But that can be a losing design philosophy in itself. However, I think it leads to potential profitability by identifying products with a vast range of utility across many different players in the D&D community.

A game that unifies the whole community by being every version potentially for every D&D group for every game? That just sounds preposterous to me, but I think what we're getting is a new game rather than support for a the variety of games already called D&D. Will it work? Will it unite the fan base? Will it even be a fun game in and of itself?

As the Zen master says, "we'll see."

 

[Raith5]

Mechanically I would start with 4th ed (especially static defenses, interesting abilities for all classes and relative balance between classes) with some elements of 3rd ed drawn in (more daily resources perhaps, more granular skill skills, prestige classes).

Basically I would like to cast a cure serious or cure critical wounds on 4th ed rather than to cast raise dead on previous editions of D&D. But D&DN seems to have an interesting direction to it.

 

[Ratskinner]

If you were to build 5e from the ground up (which Wizards seems to be sort-of doing), where would be your starting point? Everyone has his/her preferred version - mine is BECM. But even I would entertain starting from a 1e, 2e or 3.x "base" and building from there. Or would it be easier/better to start with 4e and try to retrofit elements from previous versions? Personally I think that 4e was too much of a departure on many fronts; but even I can see the benefit of Some of what was done.

What should be (or should have been) the starting point.. the foundation?

Personally, none of them. I'd start fresh with a very small set of assumptions (roll a d20 to determine success, hp, etc.) That being said, I hope they are also willing to entertain the notion that sometimes a feel can be recreated with mechanics that are nothing like the original mechanics. I've been very impressed with some of the indie games out there and their success in this regard.

 

[BobTheNob]

Considering one of the stated objectives is making the game modularizable, and that you can cherry pick what non-core aspect you wish to "tack on" to the core, the core would have to be pretty darn thin to entertain this.

With that in mind, 1e

Personally, I think 3.x (aside from its multiclassing methodology) is a better platform to start from, but wow, alot would have to be invested in shaving it back and rebuilding. Highly playable, but not without its issues.